Third party cover?

Hi,

I have just been asked to do a favour in the form of taking an
uninsured/taxed/MOT'd bike for an MOT....

I rang my car insurers (AXA) who last year confirmed my policy did
include third party cover for a bike I did not own, but this years
policy does not include that cover.

I then rang my bike insurers (Nash) who say I do have third party, but
only if the bike is covered on its own policy by the owner of the
bike.... WHAT?

I have never heard of such a condition. The person I spoke to at Nash
asked around their office and insisted that what they had said was
correct.

I then rang the local police who agreed with me that Nash seemed to
have it all wrong. My understanding is that whether or not the bikes
owner had or hadn't insurance was completely irrelevant to my own cover
in riding the bike. The only strictly illegal part would be the grey
area of riding the bike without tax, providing an oppointment had been
made for the MOT.

Has anyone any thoughts on this please?

 

I think the problem is that if its on a public right right of way it
needs to be insured by someone. ie if you park it and walk away and
the bike falls over onto something causing damage then it isnt insured
as you arent riding it.

if it isnt going to be left anywhere then you're prolly ok. the owner
will need to insure it to tax it though.

--
Adie
(replace spam with nickname to reply)

UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.net/faq/

Triumph 955iSS / GSF600 bandit
MRO#11 BOTAFOF#7 BOTAFOT#130 DIAABTCOD#17 MIB#24 YTC#16 BOB#15 ex-UKRMMA#22

 

I've always understood it that you are covered third party for a vehicle
which you do not own PROVIDED that vehicle is itself insured by another
persons policy and you have some form of vehicle insurance yourself. AIUI
this is a legal requirement of all motor vehicle policies and part of the
minimum coverage required by law.

If you can ride/drive any vehicle which the copper seems to suggest, you
could insure your own 50cc moped whilst enjoying 3rd party insurance on your
8 yr old daughters 1000cc superbike !

AIUI to do this legally at least someone has to have a valid policy for the
1000cc.

I may be wrong, but if I'm not, my missus now owns my 1200 Bandit and I'll
insure myself 3PF&T party on her Pungent Trekker. I only need 3rd party on
the Bandit so I'll be saving approx £200 a year !



Bandit.

 

you'll prolly find that theres a minimum size that applies to getting
the ride other bikes bit. IIRC its 350cc

--
Adie
(replace spam with nickname to reply)

UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.net/faq/

Triumph 955iSS / GSF600 bandit
MRO#11 BOTAFOF#7 BOTAFOT#130 DIAABTCOD#17 MIB#24 YTC#16 BOB#15 ex-UKRMMA#22

 

Yes. Either:

A) Contact a solicitor and find out exactly what the situation is.

....or ...

B) Stop fannying around and just take the bloody thing.

HTH.

 

Except that when you chuck your Bindit down the road you'll be paying
for all the repairs yourself.

HTH

Andy
--
Andy Cunningham
Stockholm, Sweden
R1150GS
UKRMMA#17
The UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.net/faq/ukrmfaq1.html

 

After serious thinking Adrienne M Jenn wrote :

Nash did mention the fact that their third party cover only extended if
my own bike was over a certain minimum size, which it is.

 

Adrienne M Jenn laid this down on his screen :

I would think that if I were at the time responsible for the vehicle at
the time and had parked it, that my own insurance would be legally
responsible for any damage.

 

Except that I would anyway, I don't need or want fully comp on a bike that
they'd only pay up to £2k for.

 

*ding*

 

you are insured to *ride* the thing. any damage caused when you're
riding it would be covered. damage caused when you're not I doubt
would be covered. I've argued this point with an insurance company
before, thats why the vehicle has to be insured too.

--
Adie
(replace spam with nickname to reply)

UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.net/faq/

Triumph 955iSS / GSF600 bandit
MRO#11 BOTAFOF#7 BOTAFOT#130 DIAABTCOD#17 MIB#24 YTC#16 BOB#15 ex-UKRMMA#22

 

I have almost the exact opposite situation. I am borrowing a bike off
a friend for a trip to Scotland next week while I wait for the
insurance claim on my write-off to be processed.

Though I *could* ride it just Third Party, I am feeling a little
financially exposed at the moment so I rang my insurers to ask about
putting the borrowed bike on my policy temporarily so I could ride it
fully comp.

At first they refused saying that as it would already be insured by my
friend that it be double-insured (which is a no-no). As it happens
the bike is *not* insured at the moment as my friend transferred the
insurance to his new bike and his old bike is just sitting in his
garage. Fortunately it is still taxed and MoT'd (and not yet SORN'd).
So, I was able to add fully comp cover for a month on my policy.

 

Third party cover for any vehicle not belonging to you and not hired to you
is provided on a lot of policies. What you're suggesting above falls foul of
the requirements of most insurers with regard to who is the most frequent
user of a vehicle. Normally the most frequent user would be the one the
policy is rated on or, more likely, the one who would be expected to be the
policy holder. To be a policy holder you also have to be the registered
keeper of a vehicle. It's this aspect that stops people taking out policies
for vehicles used by their kids etc.

 

After serious thinking Banditfrenzy wrote :

This has been done by some in the past, but the rub is that if the
company found out that you were doing this then they could reject any
claims. Exactly as they can and do reject them in cases where there is
a main named driver plus a much younger driver, and the younger driver
is found to be the only driver of the vehicle.

The third party cover for the use of a vehicle you do not own, is
intended to provide brief temporary cover. At one time it would have
been possible to actual use that third party cover to enable you to tax
a vehicle you were not the owner of, but that loop hole seems to have
been closed some years ago.

 

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:09:20 +0100, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

It's not an uncommon restriction. I believe that the intention is to
prevent abuse. e.g. You buy and insure a CB250. You then buy an R1 for
your Granny, and ride it third-party only on the CB250's insurance, taking
a gamble on the lack of theft insurance.

 

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:36:33 +0100, Banditfrenzy wrote:

You're mistaken. It used to be commonplace but seems much less so these
days.

 

My policy says:
"We will also provide the cover shown above (if this is specified in your
certificate of insurance and your vehicle has an engine size of 351cc or
more), for you to drive any motorcycle that you do not ownand have not hired
under a HP or leasing agreement, as long as you have the owner's permission
to drive it.

You are not insured against the following:
Any loss or damage to the vehicle you are driving.
Any event which occurs outside of the UK
Any event which occurs when the insurance is not in the name of an
individual person
Any liability if you no longer have possession of the insured vehicle"

Hope this helps

--
Dan L (Oldbloke)
My bike 1996 Kawasaki ZR1100 Zephyr
M'boy's current bike 1990 Suzuki TS50X (Heavily fortified)
M'boys NEW bike 2003 Honda NSR125R
BOTAFOT #140, DIAABTCOD #26

 

Oldbloke explained :

That is fairly standard wording which I am used to. No mention of a
need for the bike to already be insured by the bikes owner etc..

Which insurer is that with?

Ta!

 

Equity Red Star (A Lloyds syndicate)

--
Dan L (Oldbloke)
My bike 1996 Kawasaki ZR1100 Zephyr
M'boy's current bike 1990 Suzuki TS50X (Heavily fortified)
M'boys NEW bike 2003 Honda NSR125R
BOTAFOT #140, DIAABTCOD #26

 

Beav was thinking very hard :

I meant damage to third parties, rather than to the bike if it fell.
Sorry I didn't make that clear.